Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

In this clip of Seigo Yamaguchi Shihan, at about the 1 minute mark, the uke starts to resist. To my eyes Yamaguchi Shihan struggles a bit and his movement becomes smaller and less smooth. I also think that the uke becomes very open (suki), especially his head. I wonder what the purpose/intention is to continue to do Aikido "technique" in a situation like this.

Since this is aikido training, what alternatives to continuing to do aikido technique do you suggest?

I would consider that learning to handle resisting ukes is an important part of aikido training. Of couse, so is learning how to resist/attack without leaving yourself completely open. Hell, if all we ever did was nice flowing prearranged forms I would get bored out of my mind. Not that that doesn't also have its purpose. But I hate the thought of aikido training always being done the same way, leaving important dimensions of the art unexplored.

The location is clearly a sports hall and not a dojo, so I wonder whether the occasion was one of Yamaguchi Sensei's trips abroad. To me, the uke looks somewhat like Minoru Kanetsuka (of course in 1976 this would have been well before the onset of his cancer). This is speculation, but if it was Kanetsuka Sensei, I know from experience (having often taken ukemi from both) that he would have given Yamaguchi Sensei a run for his money.

In this clip of Seigo Yamaguchi Shihan, at about the 1 minute mark, the uke starts to resist. To my eyes Yamaguchi Shihan struggles a bit and his movement becomes smaller and less smooth. I also think that the uke becomes very open (suki), especially his head. I wonder what the purpose/intention is to continue to do Aikido "technique" in a situation like this.

In this clip of Seigo Yamaguchi Shihan, at about the 1 minute mark, the uke starts to resist. To my eyes Yamaguchi Shihan struggles a bit and his movement becomes smaller and less smooth. I also think that the uke becomes very open (suki), especially his head. I wonder what the purpose/intention is to continue to do Aikido "technique" in a situation like this.

Any thoughts/impressions?

Charles

My own take on this,,, around the middle the uke appears to be getting strong... I noticed Yamaguchi talking while that was occurring. I think he was making a "don't do this, it doesn't work" example.

At one point he seemed to be walking around with his partner attached to his arm. Once again, my take was that he was letting the crowd see how hard the attacker was working... I've done that myself.

There wre a couple of instances in which the uke's balance was broken but he chose not take the fall. He was quite open in that situation. Out context it is impossible to know what was happening... was this what Yamaguchi Sensei wanted? Was it the uke screwing with Yamaguchi? Yamaguchi kept using him for ukemi the whole time so I think it was all fine with him and there were certain points being made to the students. Sensei's usually stop using ukes they think are screwing with them. Either that or they dismantle them...

I think the salient point is that the uke was never properly aligned when a fall didn't take place and Yamaguchi was in position to make whatever adjustment was needed. He certainly didn't look upset with the fellow... the talking seemed to be to the crowd

The location is clearly a sports hall and not a dojo, so I wonder whether the occasion was one of Yamaguchi Sensei's trips abroad. To me, the uke looks somewhat like Minoru Kanetsuka (of course in 1976 this would have been well before the onset of his cancer). This is speculation, but if it was Kanetsuka Sensei, I know from experience (having often taken ukemi from both) that he would have given Yamaguchi Sensei a run for his money.

Best wishes,

PAG

Professor Goldsbury,

The information on the Youtube clip reads:

Quote:

Yamaguchi Sensei Summer School UK 1976.
Some resistance from uke at 1:00...

Since it takes place in the UK, the uke is very likely Kanetsuka Sensei, as you postulated. I wish there was more information about this clip as well as sound!

Thank you for posting this, Yamaguchui Shihan rocks! This is an excellent demonstration !

While I think it falls short of practical application to a combat scenario, it still provides the experience of the "pucker factor". Far from the " oh shit pucker factor" yet, " it ain't working ", so, adapt and redirect.

Again, thank you.

Mr. Lawrence,

Quote:

It shows if you're using your whole body or not. You should still be able to move uke while relaxed. Actually it should be really difficult unless you're relaxed!

You are absolutely correct, Uke is a dojo component, not a real-life opponet. Dojo ballerinas will dance for you no matter how badly you play.

Thank you for posting this, Yamaguchui Shihan rocks! This is an excellent demonstration !

While I think it falls short of practical application to a combat scenario, it still provides the experience of the "pucker factor". Far from the " oh shit pucker factor" yet, " it ain't working ", so, adapt and redirect.

Again, thank you.

Mr. Lawrence,

You are absolutely correct, Uke is a dojo component, not a real-life opponet. Dojo ballerinas will dance for you no matter how badly you play.

Train well,

Mickey

In this instance "dojo ballerinas" will stop you dancing at all costs, that's the point of the exercise, to test how much power you can generate and if you can apply it correctly. And actually it's not a bad representation of what most people try to do when confronted with being throw, they go stiff and lock you down.

That's fascinating! I watched the clip first, then noticed Peter's comment about the venue and the uke, and watched it again. Yes, Yamaguchi Sensei came to the UK in the mid-70s to teach a Summer School (although I didn't start practising for another couple of years so wasn't there on that occasion). The first uke definitely seems to be Kanetsuka Sensei, but I don't get the impression he was being obstructive - to me it seems to be more a case of "if your partner does this, then...". Kanetsuka Sensei was physically very strong in those days. I have heard him say in private that he was able to immobilise Yamaguchi Sensei on one occasion, to the surprise of both parties, but I don't think that is happening on this clip.

Kanetsuka was greatly influenced by Yamaguchi in the years after the latter's first UK visit - I believe that Chiba Sensei, as well as Chiba's father-in-law, Sekiya Sensei, both strongly suggested he studied with Yamaguchi, and this started a kind of revolution in Kanetsuka's aikido, as he became much softer and more sensitive. This process was deepened when Kanetsuka Sensei was seriously ill in the mid-1980s and no longer had physical strength to fall back on.

Kanetsuka Sensei, as Peter notes, puts great stress on aikido having to work against a strong grip - I think this is partly a remnant of his initial training with Gozo Shioda, and partly the influence of Saito Sensei in the 1970s. These days one uke is often not enough for him, and he likes to get three or four big guys to try to stop him moving. All the same, when I take ukemi for him I am very aware of my own openings when they appear, and I can feel that he is too - he just doesn't take advantage of them when it isn't relevant to the point he is trying to get across. Yamaguchi Sensei certainly didn't refrain from atemi, but it was usually quite a gentle reminder that you were in the wrong place.

I think that trying to infer what is actually happening in a teaching situation can often be very difficult, as while there are in general very different levels of response for the uke, it's not obvious which are available at a given instant (and many are not appropriate anyway in any given situation).

One thing I forgot to say in my last post was that Kanetsuka Sensei's ukemi is actually very different these days from what he was doing in the YouTube clip. Sometimes (though not nearly as often as, say, ten years ago) he will hold your wrist and ask you to demonstrate the movement being taught. His grip is very soft, and rather than applying resistance he brings your attention to any unconscious attempt to use force, or to any lapse in balance, by redirecting you in such a way that you fall over.

Although it is usually obvious to me what the subject of this lesson is doing wrong, it feels very peculiar when it happens to me. I have little idea where I am at fault, but I just can't grasp his centre, and the more I try, the more I seem to miss and the worse my own balance becomes. I certainly have no sense that he is resisting at all. I'm sure the rest of the class are able to see my mistakes very clearly, though...

Kanetsuka Sensei, as Peter notes, puts great stress on aikido having to work against a strong grip - I think this is partly a remnant of his initial training with Gozo Shioda, and partly the influence of Saito Sensei in the 1970s.

I really think that this emphasis on a "strong grip" is misplaced. Not that we didn't all train that way, back in the day, we did. But I have come to believe that this is a mistaken idea for several reasons.

a) it's bad martial arts - anyone ever win anything, UFC included, by grabbing someone, making his hand turn purple, and being immovable? The grabs we do come from attempts to keep an opponent from accessing a weapon. There would always have been either a strike with the other hand or a kick or both. Or the attack would have been designed to break the balance and the deliver atemi. You simply can't do that while you are tight. You lose speed. You create a direct channel for the other guy's power to hit your structure, etc It's actually easier to move someone who attacks like that than someone who grabs lightly and is has freedom to move because nothing is tight.

b) 50% of ones practice is in the role of uke. If we are striving for relaxed technique and complete freedom to move as needed, you do not want to be doing just the opposite half the time. Your body just gets confused. This is one of the things I appreciate about Endo Sensei is that he insists that the two roles be the same. He stresses connection and each partner is expected to connect to the others center and maintain that connection throughout the technique.

c) Sensitivity is far more important than strength in what we do. If you are tight, you are feeling you not the other fellow. I think part of having our teachers have us be "strong" in our ukemi was so we would eventually realize that it was a dumb way to attack. It certainly never worked with them...

What I now do with my students, starting right from the beginner level, is to teach them to grab and find the partner's center through the grab. We have the partner being grabbed throw an atemi with his other hand. The partner executing the grab should be able to prevent that strike from hitting just using the connection from his grab. He should also be able to prevent a kick from other foot, just through the grab. You can't actually do this if you are being "strong" unless you have a hundred pounds or so on your partner.

Next, we teach the attacker how to grab and achieve kuzushi via the grab and strike with the other hand. It is fluid, it is VERY fast, it is a light enough touch that the defender doesn't feel much until he is off balance and struck. To my mind, that is good martial arts. This whole thing about being strong and immovable is bad martial arts. It exists because the weapons basis of the art has been forgotten. Put edged weapons back into the equation and things change drastically.

Kevin Choate Sensei was having his students wear tanto in their belts when training. If you hunkered down and planted he'd either pull his own or your own tanto and stick you. You discovered that movement was necessary to protect your weapon and avoid the other fellow's. An attack needs to effect the other guy's center while you remain free to move and respond. That's a real attack and it's good martial arts. Anything that creates tension reduces your freedom to move and slows you down. That's bad martial arts.

I really think that this emphasis on a "strong grip" is misplaced. Not that we didn't all train that way, back in the day, we did. But I have come to believe that this is a mistaken idea for several reasons.

a) it's bad martial arts - anyone ever win anything, UFC included, by grabbing someone, making his hand turn purple, and being immovable? The grabs we do come from attempts to keep an opponent from accessing a weapon. There would always have been either a strike with the other hand or a kick or both. Or the attack would have been designed to break the balance and the deliver atemi. You simply can't do that while you are tight. You lose speed. You create a direct channel for the other guy's power to hit your structure, etc It's actually easier to move someone who attacks like that than someone who grabs lightly and is has freedom to move because nothing is tight.

b) 50% of ones practice is in the role of uke. If we are striving for relaxed technique and complete freedom to move as needed, you do not want to be doing just the opposite half the time. Your body just gets confused. This is one of the things I appreciate about Endo Sensei is that he insists that the two roles be the same. He stresses connection and each partner is expected to connect to the others center and maintain that connection throughout the technique.

c) Sensitivity is far more important than strength in what we do. If you are tight, you are feeling you not the other fellow. I think part of having our teachers have us be "strong" in our ukemi was so we would eventually realize that it was a dumb way to attack. It certainly never worked with them...

What I now do with my students, starting right from the beginner level, is to teach them to grab and find the partner's center through the grab. We have the partner being grabbed throw an atemi with his other hand. The partner executing the grab should be able to prevent that strike from hitting just using the connection from his grab. He should also be able to prevent a kick from other foot, just through the grab. You can't actually do this if you are being "strong" unless you have a hundred pounds or so on your partner.

Next, we teach the attacker how to grab and achieve kuzushi via the grab and strike with the other hand. It is fluid, it is VERY fast, it is a light enough touch that the defender doesn't feel much until he is off balance and struck. To my mind, that is good martial arts. This whole thing about being strong and immovable is bad martial arts. It exists because the weapons basis of the art has been forgotten. Put edged weapons back into the equation and things change drastically.

Kevin Choate Sensei was having his students wear tanto in their belts when training. If you hunkered down and planted he'd either pull his own or your own tanto and stick you. You discovered that movement was necessary to protect your weapon and avoid the other fellow's. An attack needs to effect the other guy's center while you remain free to move and respond. That's a real attack and it's good martial arts. Anything that creates tension reduces your freedom to move and slows you down. That's bad martial arts.

As is true of any tool, there are right ways of using "strong grips" in training and also many less useful ways.

My sloppiness may have encouraged misunderstanding of what I wrote. I looked back at my post and certainly couldn't find the words "tightness" or "rigidity", but I may have unintentionally suggested that uke's initial strong grip is supposed to persist all the way through the technique, if tori manages to get one going at all. This isn't really how I personally practice: the initial grip is there as a test of tori's (and uke's) centre, but is certainly not supposed to be physically tense or rigid, and I am particularly irritated by ukes, who ought to know better, but don't react to atemi. The grip is only meaningful from a safe position, so if tori manages to move uke's centre, the attack changes fluidly in response.

There is a continuous scale between this kind of attack and the kind of "nigiri-ho" kokyu technique demonstrated by Shioda and Saito Senseis, among others, where the grip specifically enables you to control your partner's centre directly. It can be an immobilisation - just as the ikkyo pin is - but it can also feel like an electric shock to you as uke as your strength is mysteriously taken away.

I really think that this emphasis on a "strong grip" is misplaced. Not that we didn't all train that way, back in the day, we did. But I have come to believe that this is a mistaken idea for several reasons.

a) it's bad martial arts - anyone ever win anything, UFC included, by grabbing someone, making his hand turn purple, and being immovable? The grabs we do come from attempts to keep an opponent from accessing a weapon. There would always have been either a strike with the other hand or a kick or both. Or the attack would have been designed to break the balance and the deliver atemi. You simply can't do that while you are tight. You lose speed. You create a direct channel for the other guy's power to hit your structure, etc It's actually easier to move someone who attacks like that than someone who grabs lightly and is has freedom to move because nothing is tight.

b) 50% of ones practice is in the role of uke. If we are striving for relaxed technique and complete freedom to move as needed, you do not want to be doing just the opposite half the time. Your body just gets confused. This is one of the things I appreciate about Endo Sensei is that he insists that the two roles be the same. He stresses connection and each partner is expected to connect to the others center and maintain that connection throughout the technique.

c) Sensitivity is far more important than strength in what we do. If you are tight, you are feeling you not the other fellow. I think part of having our teachers have us be "strong" in our ukemi was so we would eventually realize that it was a dumb way to attack. It certainly never worked with them...

What I now do with my students, starting right from the beginner level, is to teach them to grab and find the partner's center through the grab. We have the partner being grabbed throw an atemi with his other hand. The partner executing the grab should be able to prevent that strike from hitting just using the connection from his grab. He should also be able to prevent a kick from other foot, just through the grab. You can't actually do this if you are being "strong" unless you have a hundred pounds or so on your partner.

Next, we teach the attacker how to grab and achieve kuzushi via the grab and strike with the other hand. It is fluid, it is VERY fast, it is a light enough touch that the defender doesn't feel much until he is off balance and struck. To my mind, that is good martial arts. This whole thing about being strong and immovable is bad martial arts. It exists because the weapons basis of the art has been forgotten. Put edged weapons back into the equation and things change drastically.

Kevin Choate Sensei was having his students wear tanto in their belts when training. If you hunkered down and planted he'd either pull his own or your own tanto and stick you. You discovered that movement was necessary to protect your weapon and avoid the other fellow's. An attack needs to effect the other guy's center while you remain free to move and respond. That's a real attack and it's good martial arts. Anything that creates tension reduces your freedom to move and slows you down. That's bad martial arts.

I couldn't agree more. In fact this was a major roadblock in my head when I first starting training. In many arts the uke simply does one thing, one grab, one punch, etc. Even in my 100% fresh noob brain at 12 years old, I couldn't understand this mentality. A person never just does one thing. They react, chain, move, adjust. They are living, breathing, intelligent, tacticful (not a word, I know), people.

My first TKD lesson was me learning a few basic techniques then some drills to practice them. I was told to throw a punch to the face, I threw it and retracted my arms and was told this was wrong. It didn't make sense then to stand there with an arm outstretched waiting to be 'blocked' and it doesn't make sense now. Beyond of course building the very very basic understanding of a technique or movement. I mean no one is just going to grab your hand, so why practice just grabbing your hand. Grab your hand to pull you in, or grab your hand to attack you with a strike, or grab your hand to enter in for some kind of body grip. Just like people never throw one punch and wait, they never grab and wait.

I couldn't agree more. In fact this was a major roadblock in my head when I first starting training. In many arts the uke simply does one thing, one grab, one punch, etc. Even in my 100% fresh noob brain at 12 years old, I couldn't understand this mentality. A person never just does one thing. They react, chain, move, adjust. They are living, breathing, intelligent, tacticful (not a word, I know), people.

My first TKD lesson was me learning a few basic techniques then some drills to practice them. I was told to throw a punch to the face, I threw it and retracted my arms and was told this was wrong. It didn't make sense then to stand there with an arm outstretched waiting to be 'blocked' and it doesn't make sense now. Beyond of course building the very very basic understanding of a technique or movement. I mean no one is just going to grab your hand, so why practice just grabbing your hand. Grab your hand to pull you in, or grab your hand to attack you with a strike, or grab your hand to enter in for some kind of body grip. Just like people never throw one punch and wait, they never grab and wait.

IMHO.

I always thought you didn't retract your hand because the other person needed to work on their blocks, it's about perfecting the block, not the punch. Later when they have the block nailed they can practice against propper punches. That's the way I've always seen things done anyway. "Nobody attacks like this" isn't always a valid response. In fact it's often the biggest bunch of BS floating around the martial arts at the moment.
People that have never boxed honestly think that if they attacked someone it would be as a boxer does, for instance and they expect everyone else to as well, even if they're untrained. But that's another argument.

The point of training is to develop skills and often the best way to learn those skills is often with attacks that may not be the most realistic, but are the most useful for developing confidence, timing, form, mai-ai ect.
I really don't care if no-one will ever attack me with shomen uchi, the practice of dealing with shomen uchi has taught me lots of stuff that is applicable across the board.
.
The point about grabs is that there shouldn't be time for something else. Where I train gakyu hamni katadori is a wrist grab followed quickly by a punch. We rarely do the punch because if uke can make the punch tori has already failed. Why would you allow someone to walk up to you and plant themselves ready to strike? That's madness, you don't win fights by giving someone a free hit or letting them take your balance. The defence against a grab assumes a follow up if not simultaneous strike and it begins before uke gets anywhere near making contact.
Sure, it sometimes looks like "grab and wait" but only if you misunderstand what's going on.

Last edited by Ketsan : 06-29-2009 at 12:57 PM.
Reason: no such thing as shomen utchi :P

I certainly agree that tactically, static grab-based attacks that start and end at the grab itself don't make much sense. However, I'm at a point in my training now where I'm trying to work on certain body skills that I simply cannot do without a rigid uke who is doing nothing more than trying to not let me move our collective contact point(s). Will I one day be able to apply these principles in a fluid engagement with a careful and constantly changing uke? I certainly hope so, but for now I need an uke who is cooperating with what I need by being rigid. I don't think I'm disagreeing with anyone on the thread, but I think for some of us in the early stages, there is some merit to static, rigid, and quite unrealistic uke/tori relationships.

I really think that this emphasis on a "strong grip" is misplaced. Not that we didn't all train that way, back in the day, we did. But I have come to believe that this is a mistaken idea for several reasons.

a) it's bad martial arts - anyone ever win anything, UFC included, by grabbing someone, making his hand turn purple, and being immovable? The grabs we do come from attempts to keep an opponent from accessing a weapon. There would always have been either a strike with the other hand or a kick or both. Or the attack would have been designed to break the balance and the deliver atemi. You simply can't do that while you are tight. You lose speed. You create a direct channel for the other guy's power to hit your structure, etc It's actually easier to move someone who attacks like that than someone who grabs lightly and is has freedom to move because nothing is tight.

Is it not possible to maintain a 'strong' grip while also being relaxed? I was taught that one can 'localize' a strong grip while maintaining relaxation throughout the rest of one's body. In other words, I'm not sure that a strong grip and a relaxed body are mutually exclusive.

Is it not possible to maintain a 'strong' grip while also being relaxed? I was taught that one can 'localize' a strong grip while maintaining relaxation throughout the rest of one's body. In other words, I'm not sure that a strong grip and a relaxed body are mutually exclusive.

I suppose you can but it has little function, why neutralize one of your weapons? If I wee fighting, as opposed to training, I'd have the guy's balance broken and I'd be letting go and striking all in one movement. Or i would have taken him down at the moment of contact... neither of which requires a strong grip. One should grab ones partner the same way you hold a sword. I hope you don't white knuckle your sword...

There is a continuous scale between this kind of attack and the kind of "nigiri-ho" kokyu technique demonstrated by Shioda and Saito Senseis, among others, where the grip specifically enables you to control your partner's centre directly. It can be an immobilisation - just as the ikkyo pin is - but it can also feel like an electric shock to you as uke as your strength is mysteriously taken away.

So, George, I agree with you (I think).

Alex

Look, if you have the equipment, i.e. large hands, monster forearms, and enough mass to deliver the "grip of death", then great. But it's not only a useless skill for smaller people, male or female, but training that way is counter productive if you will never have the kind of strength where it was any function.

I don't want to get into one of those "style" discussions... but some approaches are only suitable for very strong people.

Most students are, well, average. And if you are average you are not immobilizing anyone with a grab. Not happening, silly to try.

In this instance "dojo ballerinas" will stop you dancing at all costs, that's the point of the exercise, to test how much power you can generate and if you can apply it correctly. And actually it's not a bad representation of what most people try to do when confronted with being throw, they go stiff and lock you down.

Uh...really? Thanks for pointing that out, I would have never figured that out myself. I will attempt to be more astute.

I suppose you can but it has little function, why neutralize one of your weapons? If I wee fighting, as opposed to training, I'd have the guy's balance broken and I'd be letting go and striking all in one movement. Or i would have taken him down at the moment of contact... neither of which requires a strong grip. One should grab ones partner the same way you hold a sword. I hope you don't white knuckle your sword...

lol, my sword skills are nill so I won't attempt to address that. However, I'm not sure that a strong grip equates to white knuckling either. Maybe we are just 'disagreeing' on what constitutes a strong grip. I do know that in grappling a strong grip can be quite useful.

As one of those small folks (and now with bad arthritis affecting grip in both hands it is even more apt for me) I always appreciated early advice from an instructor to attack with "sticky palms" in order to find/feel the connection, rather than worrying about the strength of my grip.

lol, my sword skills are nill so I won't attempt to address that. However, I'm not sure that a strong grip equates to white knuckling either. Maybe we are just 'disagreeing' on what constitutes a strong grip. I do know that in grappling a strong grip can be quite useful.

I would say that this is one of the things that makes grappling, grappling. But even then, the muscles in the hand are so small compared to your other muscle groups that if you put them in competition with one another, the grip always loses.

I am not saying that strength is bad or that one shouldn't do conditioning. I am saying that what most people do in their technique is inefficient. It uses way too much energy for the task at hand, attempts to accomplish things that it shouldn't be attempting, (i.e. trying to keep someone from moving as opposed to keepoing a direct connection to their center) and doesn't work against people who really know how to relax.

Janet's description of sticking so that you can feel the partner's center is a good one. Then you can start to create movement that doesn't require much in the way of physical effort.